12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
State courts determine, in the absence of constitutional provision to the contrary, whether amendments to state constitutions have been proposed and adopted in the manner provided for these constitutions. Not every minor deviation from the course of action marked out in the constitution for its amendment is deemed sufficient to justify the court in declaring that the amendment has been “unconstitutionally adopted,” but whether these deviations are serious enough to warrant such a declaration is a question to be determined by the courts themselves. Statutes supplementing constitutional provisions on the subject of amendment are valid if not in conflict with the constitutional provisions themselves, and substantial compliance with these rules is also required by the courts. Sometimes the provisions regulating the subject of publication of proposed amendments are constitutional; at other times they are statutory. In either case, publication in the manner provided for, and for the period of time provided for, is necessary to the validity of the amendment. Publication for two weeks, when the period should have been four weeks, was deemed sufficient by the Nebraska court to invalidate the amendment involved.
1 Some state constitutions provide that certain officers other than judges shall determine whether or not an amendment has been adopted by the required number of votes, and in these states the courts will not determine the question. For a discussion of this problem, see McClurg v. Powell, 77 Miss. 543, 27 So. 927 (1900).
2 Board of Liquidation v. Whitney-Central Trust & Savings Bank, 122 So. 850 (La., 1929).
3 Middleton v. Police Jury, 125 So. 447 (La., 1929).
4 State v. Cline, 224 N. W. 6 (Neb., 1929).
5 Ibid.
6 State ex rel. Highway Comm. v. Thompson, 19 S.W. (2d) 642 (Mo., 1929).
7 Lane v. Lukens, 283 Pac. 532 (Ida., 1929).
8 Borden v. La. State Bd. of Educ., 123 So. 655 (La., 1930).
9 Allen v. State, 21 S.W. (2d) 527 (Tex., 1929).
10 Walton v. Walton, 278 Pac. 780 (Colo., 1929). See Caylor v. State, 121 So. 12 (Ala., 1929).
11 In re Casebier, 284 Pac. 611 (Kan., 1930).
12 People v. Wortman, 334 Ill. 298, 165 N.E. 788 (1929). See People v. White, 334 Ill. 465, 166 N.E. 100 (1929).
13 Morton v. Pac. Constr. Co., 283 Pac. 281 (Ariz., 1929).
14 Smith v. Peterson, 279 Pac. 27 (Ore., 1929).
15 State v. Moorer, 150 S.E. 269 (S.C., 1929).
16 Sarlis v. State, 166 N.E. 270 (Ind., 1929). But see the later case, holding the statute invalid on other grounds, infra note 51.
17 In re Improvement of Third Street, 225 N.W. 86 (Minn., 1929).
18 Keane v. Remy, 168 N.E. 10 (Ind., 1929).
19 The author is at present preparing a study of curative and amendatory statutes and the effect of an unconstitutional statute.
20 Lee v. Byrd, 151 S.E. 28 (Ga., 1929).
21 Hardaway v. State, 22 S.W. (2d) 919 (Tex. Crim. App. 1929).
22 State v. Manry, 16 S.W. (2d) 809 (Tex., 1929)
23 In re Vice Chancellors, 148 Atl. 570 (N.J., 1930).
24 Brown v. Kienstra, 169 N.E. 736 (Ill., 1930).
25 Palmer v. Johnson, 121 So. 466 (Fla., 1929).
26 Barnes v. Lehi City, 279 Pac. 878 (Utah, 1929).
27 Ex parte Richmond, 14 S.W. (2d) 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1929).
28 People v. McMurchy, 238 N.W. 723 (Mich., 1930).
29 People v. White, 334 Ill. 465, 166 N.E. 100 (1929).
30 Livingston County v. Crossland, 299 Ky. 733, 17 S.W. (2d) 1018 (1929).
31 Ex parte Morse, 284 Pac. 18 (Okla., 1930).
32 James v. Hoss, 285 Pac. 205 (Ore., 1930).
33 Shaw. v. Grumbine, 278 Pac. 311 (Okla., 1929).
34 State v. Phillips, 159 Tenn. 546, 21 S.W. (2d) 4 (1929).
35 Smith v. Peterson, 279 Pac. 27 (Ore., 1929).
36 Stanley v. Gates, 19 S.W. (2d) 1000 (Ark., 1929).
37 People v. Borgeson, 335 Ill. 136, 166 N.E. 451 (1929).
38 Ex parte Batelle, 277 Pac. 738 (Cal. 1929).
39 McSween v. State Livestock Sanitary Board, 122 So. 239 (Fla., 1929).
40 Bell v. Sampson, 232 Ky. 376, 23 S.W. (2d) 575 (1930).
41 McChesney v. Sampson, 232 Ky. 395, 23 S.W. (2d) 584 (1930).
42 Votteler v. Fields, 232 Ky. 322, 23 S.W. (2d) 588 (1926).
43 State v. Christianson, 229 N.W. 313 (Minn., 1930).
44 State v. Ballentine, 150 S.E. 46 (S.C., 1929).
45 State ex rel. Arceneaux v. Breaux, 125 So. 283 (La., 1929).
46 State v. Brannon, 283 Pac. 202 (Mont., 1929).
47 Smith v. Patterson, 279 Pac. 271 (Ore., 1929).
48 Cook v. Mason, 283 Pac. 891 (Cal. App. 1929).
49 City of Lynn v. Commr. of Civil Service, 169 N.E. 502 (Mass., 1929). See for a general discussion of this topic, 28 Mich. L. Rev. 614.
50 State v. Cook, 276 Pac. 958 (Mont., 1929).
51 Keane v. Remy, 168 N.E. 10 (Ind., 1929).
52 Ex parte Bess, 150 S.E. 54 (S.C., 1929).
53 Adkin v. Commonwealth, 23 S.W. (2d) 277 (Ky., 1929).
54 People v. Tremaine, 252 N.Y. 27, 168 N.E. 817 (1929). See the analysis of this and the several other points in this case, in Crawford, “The Executive Budget Decision in New York,” in this Review, vol. 24, p. 403Google Scholar.
55 In re Opinions of Justices, 126 So. 161 (Ala., 1930).
56 State v. Davis, 299 N.W. 105 (N.Dak., 1930).
57 Aberg v. Moe, 224 N.W. 132 (Wis., 1929).
58 Williams v. Baldridge, 284 Pac. 203 (Ida., 1930). See Guttierrez v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, 282 Pac. 1 (N. Mex., 1929), upholding a statute creating an irrigation district and providing a system of financing its operations.
59 Eyers Woolen Co. v. Town of Gilsum, 146 Atl. 511 (N. Hamp., 1929).
60 Hines v. State, 234 N.Y.S. 224, 134 Misc. Rep. 1 (Ct. Cl., 1929).
61 Reclamation Board v. Riley, 284 Pac. 668 (Cal., 1930).
62 Lyman v. Chase, 226 N.W. 633 (Minn., 1929).
63 Amos v. Mathews, 126 So. 308 (Fla., 1930).
64 Stanley v. Gates, 19 S.W. (2d) 1000 (Ark., 1929).
65 City of Rockwood v. N.O. & T.P. Ry., 22 S.W. (2d) 237 (Tenn., 1929).
66 Livesay v. De Armond, 284 Pac. 166 (Ore., 1930).
67 See, for Minnesota, vols. 14, p. 44, and 15, p. 51, of Bulletin of League of Minnesota Municipalities.
68 Thomas v. Reid, 285 Pac. 92 (Okla., 1930).
69 Tonnar v. Wade, 121 So. 156 (Miss., 1929).
70 Davis v. Teague, 125 So. 51 (Ala., 1929).
71 Lee v. Byrd, 151 S.E. 28 (Ga., 1929).
72 Callaghan v. Voorhies, 252 N.Y. 14, 168 N.E. 447 (1929).
73 Seal v. Knight, 121 So. 632 (La. App., 1929).
74 State v. Green, 121 O. St. 301, 168 N.E. 131 (1929).
75 Hamilton v. Marshall, 282 Pac. 1058 (Wyo., 1929).
76 Commonwealth v. Widovich, 295 Pa. 311, 145 Atl. 295 (1929).
77 See Goodrich, , “Does the Constitution Protect the Freedom of Speech?,” 19 Mich. L. Rev. 487CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
78 City of Albany v. Meyer, 279 Pac. 213 (Cal. D.C. App. 1st, 1929).
79 City of Springfield v. Smith, 19 S.W. (2d) 1 (Mo., 1929).
80 Cook v. City of Harrison, 21 S.W. (2d) 966 (Ark., 1929).
81 Borden v. State Bd. of Educ., 123 So. 655 (La., 1929).
82 Burman v. Commonwealth, 228 Ky. 410, 15 S.W. (2d) 256 (1929).
83 Brownwell Corp. v. Ginsky, 225 N.W. 531 (Mich., 1929).
84 Ex parte Marler, 282 Pac. 353 (Okla., 1929).
85 State v. Redmond, 148 S.E. 474 (S.C., 1929).
86 Belding v. State, 121 O. St. 393, 169 N.E. 301 (1929).
87 Reese v. Baker, 123 So. 3 (Fla., 1929).
88 Franchier v. Gammill, 124 So. 365 (Miss., 1929). Also Roberts v. Fuller, 229 N.W. 163 (Ia., 1930).
89 Ex parte Chase, 284 Pac. 294 (Okla., 1930).
90 Ex parte Tindall, 15 S.W. (2d) 24 (Tex. Crim. App., 1929).
91 Ex parte Wright, 283 Pac. 53 (N.Mex., 1929).
92 Hall v. Brown, 284 Pac. 396 (Kan., 1930).
93 State v. Lange, 123 So. 639 (La., 1929).
94 State v. Crawford, 149 S.E. 729 (N.Car., 1929).
95 State v. Henderson, 122 So. 591 (La., 1929).
96 People v. Garcia, 277 Pac. 747 (Cal. D.C. App. 2nd., 1929).
97 Popp v. State, 280 Pac. 478 (Okla. Crim. App., 1929).
98 Williams v. State, 17 S.W. (2d) 56 (Tex. Crim. App., 1929).
99 Vale v. State, 277 Pac. 608 (Okla. Crim. App., 1929).
100 Ibid.
101 State v. Zupan, 283 Pac. 671 (Wash., 1929).
102 State v. Harris, 22 S.W. (2d) 1050 (Mo., 1929).
103 Fowler v. State, 22 S.W. (2d) 935 (Tex., 1930).
104 Watland v. N. Dak. Workman's Comp. Bureau, 225 N.W. 812 (N.D., 1929).
105 Gill v. Johnson, 284 Pac. 510 (Cal. D.C. App. 4th., 1930).
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.